321 replies to this topic

[Fort Worthology]

^^^
Just because it's a a 16-story spec building doesn't mean it can't be good!!!

Err, myself and quite a few others DO think it's good. That's not what I was talking about.

And sad to say, in height challenged FW, sixteen stories is still a significant size structure. If you continue to expect mediocrity, you'll continue to get it. That's why FW looks the way it does.

Oh, you don't like Fort Worth. Thanks for letting us know! I had forgotten - it's not like you mention it in some way in every. Single. Post.

As for how Fort Worth looks, I don't think Fort Worth is ugly at all. We have too many gorgeous historic buildings to call us unattractive, and we do have some nice modern stuff as well (Pier 1, for instance, is one of my favs). Our '70s and '80s stuff stinks, sure - but not much worse than most cities'.

I've seen many buildings that size or smaller that are really well designed and eye-cathing. If everything "blends in" nothing stands out or is very memorable.

I do think the Carnegie is well designed. I know, I know - how dare I like a building that's not bleeding edge modern! Funny that I can somehow appreciate styles that go in either direction.

As for blending in, I'm sorry, but while context is not king, it's not the king's fool, either. I'd rather have buildings that blend with existing neighborhoods than a bunch of loners jutting their randomly curved glassy walls into the sky with no regard for context or existing styles.

I know, I know - blah blah blah "Fort Worth is ugly!" Blah blah blah "Fort Worth doesn't have a kewl skyline!!1" Blah blah blah "Fort Worth doesn't have enough 'progressive' buildings!" You'll have to excuse me from further discussion along this line, because I'm tired of defending my city to people who don't live here and go out of their way to deride it with every contribution they make to the forum. Have fun - I'm done here.

[vjackson]

I do think the Carnegie is well designed. I know, I know - how dare I like a building that's not bleeding edge modern! Funny that I can somehow appreciate styles that go in either direction.

Who said it had to be modern?? Mr. D isn't the only person who isn't fond of the building, but because he doesn't live in FW, he can't say so?? You can feel free to knock any building in any city I've lived in, your opinion is welcomed.

You'll have to excuse me from further discussion along this line, because I'm tired of defending my city to people who don't live here

Who says you have to. It's useless to attempt to defend comments against something as subjective as architectural taste. If CD thinks FW's skyline is ugly can can you prove to him its not? You might as well argue which color is prettier, red or blue. Lose the Gestapo attitude and let others express thier opinions as you so freely and often do. Who says you have to like or agree with them.

[FW_Drew]

To me the debate is the blending in part. Here in Fort Worth there is an option of blending in with the current style and mood of the buildings laid throughout downtown. This is great value to have and many don't see it way, I'm not sure why. If this were built in Las Colinas what would it possibly blend in with? 183? I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a certain type of building that fits in a downtown setting and one that fits along a highway. Don't you guys agree? I think the Carnegie is going to look much better in real life than in the one and only image thats one here.

[vjackson]

To me the debate is the blending in part. Here in Fort Worth there is an option of blending in with the current style and mood of the buildings laid throughout downtown. This is great value to have and many don't see it way, I'm not sure why. If this were built in Las Colinas what would it possibly blend in with? 183? I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a certain type of building that fits in a downtown setting and one that fits along a highway. Don't you guys agree? I think the Carnegie is going to look much better in real life than in the one and only image thats one here.

I think the Carnagie wouldn't look odd in Los Colinas at all. It's a plain building (regardless of the faux historical elements) just like most of LC's structures. The Ritz-Carlton in Dallas is also a blandish (brownish) historical design, yet it doesn't look out of place amongst the more modern towers around it.

[CurtisD]

Why do this? There ought to be a designated FW bashing thread so that it doesn't have to come up in every other thread.

There ought to be another one for overlysensitive people who can't handle a differing opinion or view and wish to run an architectual forum like Nazis and supress and attack anyone who doesn't agree with them.

"Fort Worth doesn't have a kewl skyline!!1" Blah blah blah "Fort Worth doesn't have enough 'progressive' buildings!" You'll have to excuse me from further discussion along this line, because I'm tired of defending my city to people who don't live here and go out of their way to deride it with every contribution they make to the forum. Have fun - I'm done here.

Regardless of what you think (not that I care), I don't hate FW, but I don't think its perfect either. If I want to dwell on the things I dislike about my hometown, then that's my choice. By throwing tamtrums just because someone doesn't agree with you, just makes you look childish and insecure. So you like the Carnagie, FW's skyline, and Schwarz's work..and I don't...so what?? I love FW and I don't feel a need to defend it. If someone doesn't like my hometown..so what. I'll gladly discuss our differences of opinion, but to get angry or upset over something so silly is laughable, IMO. I advise you to take a hint from NY. I personally can't stand NY, but do you think a proud diehard NY loving citizen cares?? ..and is going to take the time out of his/her day to tell me why I'm wrong about my dislike for The Big Apple..WHUTEVAA!!!

As I'm sure you'll claim you behave in such a ridiculous manner because of your FW pride, however, I think your reaction is simply an inability to handle an OPINION that differs from yours. If my comments keep you up at night, I apologize, but I have a feeling you would behave the same way if I didn't like your all time favorite movie or the shirt you are wearing. So if you get riled up again over an OPINION I may have, pop an advil, xanax, valium or whatever you need to calm yourself down...it ain't that serious.

[SurplusPopulation]

I love this website & forum and have since I first found it. I check it now and then still... but its not the same.
No one questions your right to voice your opinion. No one questions the virtues of listening to an opinion that differs from your own. But everytime you attempt to talk about your favorite movie and that one guy you hang out with (who knows you love it) incessantly reviews all the reasons he thinks its crappy...and by god, it is his right to say so...it takes the fun out of the whole thing.
(You know, some of the time I think that was the whole purpose...whether they know it or not.)

[Sam Stone]

One of the finest pieces of modern architectural criticism is a short book by Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown called "Learning From Las Vegas." It's excellent and I think everyone on the Forum ought to read it. In lieu of that, I'll summarize.

They argue that most buidings fall into one of two categories: ducks or sheds. Ducks are so named after whimsical roadside hotdog stands (one in the shape of a duck) that symbolize novelty buildings. Many novelty buidings have much grander purposes than selling hotdogs. They include cathedrals, capitols, courthouses, trains stations, and the like. What they have in common is that their shape is novel or sets them apart from their surroundings in some way. Sheds are buildings that are very straighforward in plan (shape), but whose facades may vary from plain to ornate. A shed's decoration is only skin deep, while a duck's shape is it's decoration. Shed's often have more mundane, but no less important, functions than ducks. They house most of our businesses and they house us when we're at home or when we travel.

The problem, the authors say, is that while the world needs both ducks and sheds, later stages of modernism have completely switched which functions get which buildings and we've over produced the ducks. We've stuck our important civic and cultural buildings in sheds and we've made our homes and offices into ducks.

There seem to me to be two kinds of architects today. There are those who are the heirs of modernism (and by this I mean the styles and the ideology). And there are those who are willing to take a critical look at modernism. I would group Gehry, Liebskind, Predock, Pei, Hadid, Koolhaas in the former category and Schwarz, Duany, Plater-Zyberk, Pelli, Polshek, in the latter.

[cberen1]

By throwing tamtrums just because someone doesn't agree with you, just makes you look childish and insecure...

As I'm sure you'll claim you behave in such a ridiculous manner because of your FW pride, however, I think your reaction is simply an inability to handle an OPINION that differs from yours. If my comments keep you up at night, I apologize, but I have a feeling you would behave the same way if I didn't like your all time favorite movie or the shirt you are wearing. So if you get riled up again over an OPINION I may have, pop an advil, xanax, valium or whatever you need to calm yourself down...it ain't that serious.

I'd like to point out that a one-line response to your post is hardly a "tantrum". Getting "riled up" would look more like what you and Vj have done in response to my little 24 word note.

It's not what you say, but how you say it. It would have been easy to state the opinion that perhaps people in FW don't care about skyscrapers because of the lack of skyscrapers in FW, without calling them "jarring mistakes". Why attribute this idea: "The idea that you can't have fine examples of both historic and modern buildings, like I don't know.... every other large city in America... is simply crazy." to FW? I've never met anyone who believes you can't have historic and modern buildings together. Who believes this?

To me, an opinion that must be accompanied by insults and jabs to be persuasive represents the height of insecurity.

[vjackson]

I'd like to point out that a one-line response to your post is hardly a "tantrum". Getting "riled up" would look more like what you and Vj have done in response to my little 24 word note.

I was merely stating that I didn't see a bash in CurtisD's quote, you've never seen me riled up. Like Curtis, I don't take an architectural forum seriously enough to ever get upset. CurtisD rarely ever posts anyway, and if you know what to expect from him when he posts, then why even respond?? You and others have commented about his posts before and and yet he continues to makes posts that you deem as negative. Then shouldn't you know by now what to expect from him? It seems pointless to me to even respond to his post, but it's your time.

I'm going back to discussing my disdain for Schwarz..if that's okay with you.

[vjackson]

One of the finest pieces of modern architectural criticism is a short book by Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown called "Learning From Las Vegas." It's excellent and I think everyone on the Forum ought to read it. In lieu of that, I'll summarize.

An architect recommended this book to me and it is a very good read. I remember I got it on Amazon really cheap, around $15.

[cbellomy]

Learning from Las Vegas sounds like a good read. Thanks for the heads up, Sam.

In thinking about this some more, it struck me that there's still very little discussion of this building from a macro perspective. We've examined the building itself as a standard Schwarz creation through and through, with pro and con opinions voiced strongly. But what does the building lend to the overall fabric of downtown?

Bear with me a moment, there's a point coming.

One of my favorite places on earth is Santa Fe. (Or, it was, before it got overrun by Californians. But I digress.) I've taken many friends with me up there for their first visits, and their very first impressions as we come into town are uniform: "This is it? It's brown. Everything's brown. I've seen brown before." But then the visual palate starts to reset -- the uniform brown ground and vivid blue sky start to function as a canvas against which the colors of Santa Fe (natural and otherwise) start to jump out. Soon they are seeing greens and pinks and purples in a natural intensity they had never imagined before, and they start to "get" it.

I think the Carnegie works in two ways. One, for the Schwarz haters -- it's brown ground. In Fort Worth, it's another of a long line of midrise brown brick buildings with some ornamentation mixed in. We've got a lot of those buildings and this will be another. Nothing to get excited about, I agree.

For those like Atomic Glee, though, it functions as a street-friendly building that replaces an ugly parking lot and adds pedestrian value to that end of downtown. In terms of this aspect of function, it's an important addition, by subtraction of the surface parking if nothing else.

For everybody, though, it provides context for potential future ambitious architecture if and when it starts to happen near there. It's the brown that makes the pinks and greens and purples really jump out. If you don't have these buildings, the modern towers lack context and create an environment that is overly sterile. For instance, Las Colinas will never have DTFW's charm because of this, IMO.

For this reason, any non-eyesore that replaces surface parking downtown is a very good thing.

I do hope we will get more buildings as ambitious as Pier 1 and the Omni soon. I don't care terribly about height but we need more density! The Carnegie will serve was one step to nudge that process along. These steps matter.

[jmilam]

This site if full of people who don't know how to carry on a conversation. Most topics get personal and sarcastic to the point of no return. That type of conversation usually puts an end to the discussion and serves no purpose IMHO. The negativity is a reflection of our society in general. Most people don't have anything to talk about, if they are not complaining, and it is reflected in the tone and attitude of many posts on this site. I looked at the hobby section for one of our extreme posters in the historical section. One of his hobbies is "arguing", and it is usually what is posted by this person. I believe you can discuss without all this sarcastic mess, but this view does not seem to be shared by many....(I'm off topic, sorry..!)

[PLS]

Most topics get personal and sarcastic to the point of no return.

welcome to the world of online message boards... it's like this on every board i go to.

[KevCoz]

I used to really enjoy this forum. I have not read it regularly for the past couple of years due to the incessant rants, bashing, and child-like behavior of several forum members. I still check in occasionally to see what's been happening in the city. However, I find it almost impossible to read through a single thread without being subjected to off-topic rants and attacks. What a complete lack of respect some of you have for others and for our city. It is a shame that adults act in this manner.

I applaud John for creating this space for everyone's mutual benefit. Unfortunately, it has become an outlet for certain folks to loudly and frequently voice their strong dislike for the city. Until this has been brought under control, I will no longer be a regular visitor to the site. I have to put up with this sort of behavior all day at work. I certainly do not wish to spend my free time with those of you who have to voice your caustic, angry two cents on every thread! Please fix this problem, John.

[cbellomy]

Please fix this problem, John.

With all respect, Kev, it's not John's problem to fix. You have the ability make the software ignore anyone you want. Use it.

The last thing you want is for censorship flamewars to break out. Trust me on this.

[apearson28]

I used to really enjoy this forum. I have not read it regularly for the past couple of years due to the incessant rants, bashing, and child-like behavior of several forum members. I still check in occasionally to see what's been happening in the city. However, I find it almost impossible to read through a single thread without being subjected to off-topic rants and attacks. What a complete lack of respect some of you have for others and for our city. It is a shame that adults act in this manner.

I applaud John for creating this space for everyone's mutual benefit. Unfortunately, it has become an outlet for certain folks to loudly and frequently voice their strong dislike for the city. Until this has been brought under control, I will no longer be a regular visitor to the site. I have to put up with this sort of behavior all day at work. I certainly do not wish to spend my free time with those of you who have to voice your caustic, angry two cents on every thread! Please fix this problem, John.

I feel the same way. Except for the idea that John can somehow fix the problem.

[John T Roberts]

Kevin, I don't know exactly how to respond to this. I also don't think I can really "fix" this. I have always been a believer that this forum will police itself overall. I agree that there are some people who don't have anything positive to say; however, the whole purpose of this board is for discussion of items relating to the city. One is free to express their opinions on things, and if they don't like something, they can say it. I don't want this board to be a praise-all for Fort Worth, because this city is not perfect and quite a few things need to be fixed and addressed. This city is too large and growing too fast not to have some problems. I also feel that I have never been heavy handed into censorship. I don't feel that I shoud ban or punish someone on this board just because they don't share my opinion. My general approach with my threads are, "If you can't say something nice about something or someone, then don't say it at all". Maybe others on this board should take my advice. I also would like to recommend everyone who reads this post to go back and read all of the "Forum Guidelines and Rules". If they do, they might find they have violated some of them.

We are now completely off-topic, so let's get back to The Carnegie Building discussion. If some of you wish to continue this off-topic discussion, post a reply here and then I will split the thread and we will continue it over in "Architecture in Downtown Fort Worth Web Site and Forum" section.

[K.L.]

I used to really enjoy this forum. I have not read it regularly for the past couple of years due to the incessant rants, bashing, and child-like behavior of several forum members. I still check in occasionally to see what's been happening in the city. However, I find it almost impossible to read through a single thread without being subjected to off-topic rants and attacks. What a complete lack of respect some of you have for others and for our city. It is a shame that adults act in this manner.

I applaud John for creating this space for everyone's mutual benefit. Unfortunately, it has become an outlet for certain folks to loudly and frequently voice their strong dislike for the city. Until this has been brought under control, I will no longer be a regular visitor to the site. I have to put up with this sort of behavior all day at work. I certainly do not wish to spend my free time with those of you who have to voice your caustic, angry two cents on every thread! Please fix this problem, John.

I feel the same way. Except for the idea that John can somehow fix the problem.

I agree. I used to be a member on this site and i noticed the bashing as well. Sometimes I wondered was this an architecture site or an aol teens chatroom. I must admit that it has gotten better lately and some of the newbies make pretty good points. I don't have a problem with creativity but a lack of common sense is worth bashing. Therefore, I don't think anyone makes dumb comments on purpose, so I'm pretty laidback on the issue of dumb post on this site. K.L.

[K.L.]

Some of you may disagree but i must say, Atomic Glee is a character. I like reading his comments. He is really straight to the point and he makes the unpopular comments about our skyline that we simply just don't admit at times. Keep em coming A glee. Keep em coming. K.L.

[Shocker]

They are installing the base of the crane right now.

[mosteijn]

Exciting! That would make two cranes for the Omni, a crane for Trinity Terrace, and a crane for Carnegie. Maybe they'll put some cranes in for TCC and One Cityplace. I love the way cranes look on the skyline - they say "hey, don't judge what's here now, things are changing"!

[JBB]

Plus the 3 south of I30.

[John T Roberts]

There's one more crane coming for the Caceria Building on the old Mexican Inn site.

[Redshirt]

Somebody's going to have to post a shot of DT with all these cranes in view (if possible). This is an exciting time and I can't see it!

[mosteijn]

A little vertigo, anyone?

[JBB]

Tower crane is going up today.

[Fort Worthology]

Construction shots:

[texastrill]

What I believe is the Carnegie crane:

[John T Roberts]

Here's my latest construction shot taken on June 3rd.

[Perkins]

Does anyone know if the Carnegie has a live construction cam?

I haven’t made it DT lately and passing down 30 the other day, I thought I could see the Carnegie getting on up there in visible height.

[Fort Worthology]

Does anyone know if the Carnegie has a live construction cam?

I haven’t made it DT lately and passing down 30 the other day, I thought I could see the Carnegie getting on up there in visible height.

I don't believe it has a cam. Only two projects that do are the Omni and the Trinity Terrace City Tower.

It'll top out around the same height as the Tandy, err, City Place towers, so it'll be noticeable.

[Perkins]

Can someone tell me where construction progress is at, as far as floors on the Carnegie so far? I don't have much time to get DT.

Thanks!

[JBB]

Somewhere in the 10 or 11 of 16 neighborhood, I think.

[cberen1]

It's funny, but I stopped to count on Tuesday for no real reason. I counted 12, but my 3 year old was yelling about the cran, so i might have jumped one.

[Dismuke]

I do have some "demolition" photos to post. This week, they have been excavating the basement of the old Salvation Army building that used to be on that site. It had two light wells down into the basement and you can see the windows now exposed.

This brings back a posting from WAY back in last November - but I only read the thread this evening for the first time. Any idea when that old Salvation Army building was built? And, more importantly - why would there be windows in the building's basement? Were the surrounding lots once much lower than they are now?

[John T Roberts]

The light wells on each side of the building were extended down to the basement level and provided light and air to all floors of the building. There may have even been some kind of access to grade at either the front or the rear of the building. The surrounding lots had buildings on them and the ground floors of the buildings on each side were at approximately the same level as the Salvation Army. I believe the building was built in the 1940's.

[safly]

It's funny, but I stopped to count on Tuesday for no real reason. I counted 12, but my 3 year old was yelling about the cran, so i might have jumped one.

That is funny. So how long did it take for you to count those 12 floors? Kiddos can do that to you.

PRESSURE.
"1,2,3 Oh YES sweetie, the crane, the crane. 1,2,3,4,5 Oh YES Honey, BIG PIRANHA FISH, yes, 1,2,3,4,11teen??"

[David Love]

After they topped the next door garage, construction progress has gone way up.

I have some new photos of the current progress, will have them up shortly.

[John T Roberts]

Here are my latest photos. They are on the 14th Level of the building, so it is near topping out.

[rwolfe]

The Carnegie was "topped out" today. Here's my view from the 20th floor of The Tower. They've been working at a feverish pace for the last several weeks, including a couple of all-nighters.

-Richard

[John T Roberts]

I decided to beat the cold front and get out and ride my bicycle early this morning. Once I was out, I decided to ride through downtown because there wouldn't be any traffic. I did notice the tree sitting on top of the one beam placed for the mechanical penthouse.

[rsowell73]

I'm not sure if this has already been asked. Does anyone know if the south side of the building will be finished out like the front or will be like the backside of the Chase building? I noticed the corners of the south side and it does not look like there will be any windows on the corners like the front of the building.

[John T Roberts]

No one has posted renderings of the back side of the building. They probably were not done because few people care about the back sides of buildings. I can tell you that from looking at the photo that rwolfe took, the 14th, 15th, and 16th floors in the center section of the back of the building setback in a similar way that the north side of the building does. However, the distance that this center section of wall is located from the back wall of the parking garage is greater than the corresponding inset on the north side of the building. There is a reason for this and it is the same reason the corners on the south sides have no windows. Current building codes do not allow windows to be located on property lines, or within a certain distance of an adjacent building; therefore, the section of the building directly on the property line will not have any windows per the building code. The reason the center section is inset is to provide a minimum clearance from the parking garage to allow windows. Since this appears to be a distance close to the minimum, the building code requires that glass to be fire-rated with either wire embedded in the glass, or a special type of glass that is for rated construction.

Buildings constructed before the modern building codes were adopted often had windows directly on the property lines. That is why you see windows on the back sides of older skyscrapers. Also, these buildings were constructed before air conditioning, so they needed windows on all four sides to help air circulate through the buildings in the summer. If you think about why these codes were adopted, it really makes a great deal of sense. Fire could easily travel between two buildings if there were windows on the property lines.

Rsowell, I see this is your first post. Welcome to the Fort Worth Forum!

[SLO]

Great pix, John & rwolfe. I had not seen the bldg in person....

[rsowell73]

Thanks John. So do you think the fascade will be different on the south side?

[FW_Drew]

Not bad....
The first tenants should move in in June with the building more than 80 percent leased. It is expected to be at full occupancy within the first year, according to Bass


http://www.star-tele...ory/431948.html

A ceremonial "topping out" was held at The Carnegie on Thursday, the 16-story office building under construction near the downtown Fort Worth library at Third and Lamar streets.

Real estate professionals have said that occupancy in downtown office buildings is being buoyed by growth of energy companies, particularly those drilling in the Barnett Shale natural gas field under Fort Worth. The Carnegie is no different. EOG Resources, a Houston-based oil and gas firm, committed to leasing 50,000 square feet when the project broke ground in August 2006.

By January 2007, EOG upped its space request to 106,000 square feet but now wants 159,460 square feet of space.

"And this Barnett Shale is going to be 20 years developing, so that speaks well for Fort Worth for the next two decades," said Ed Bass, the building's developer.

What is a topping out?

The owner, architect and other development and construction-related dignitaries typically sign and date the last steel beam, which is painted, before it is hoisted and bolted into the structure of a building. The term is used by ironworkers and signifies that the project has reached its maximum height. An American flag and sometimes a small evergreen tree are attached to the beam.

Why is it called The Carnegie?

In 1901, the first public library in Fort Worth was funded with a $50,000 grant from the Carnegie Foundation and was called the Carnegie Public Library. The new office building sits directly south of the current downtown library, whose architecture was inspired by the first library.

What tenants are going into The Carnegie?

Right now, the developer will only release the name of EOG Resources, which they say may still choose to take more room. There is space for shops and restaurants on the ground floor. But, Johnny Campbell, president of Sundance Square, says there are a couple of other tenants lined up. "One of the beauties of having such a strong anchor tenant in the development process of the building is that we can adjust as we go," Campbell said. "We obviously planned a little cushion between EOG and the floors that we're continuing to lease, anticipating some expansion from EOG."

Who is building it?

Linbeck Construction in Fort Worth has completed about 60 percent of the 280,000-square-foot building that architect David Schwarz designed. The firm has about 120 workers on site every day.

When will it be open?

The first tenants should move in in June with the building more than 80 percent leased. It is expected to be at full occupancy within the first year, according to Bass.

sabaker@star-telegram.com
SANDRA BAKER, 817-390-7727

[safly]

So why didn't they build this NEW structure by the OLD ORIGINAL Carnegie Library?

Thanks for the esessplanations.

[Fort Worthology]

So why didn't they build this NEW structure by the OLD ORIGINAL Carnegie Library?

Because the old one was demolished long ago?

[Brian Luenser]

New shot of the Carnegie on March 16, 2008.

Surprises me that they brick from the top down.

[JKC]

Thanks John. So do you think the fascade will be different on the south side?

Same materials, different windows etc., see John's explanation above.